ACT Criminal Law
National Criminal Law
NSW Criminal Law
QLD Criminal Law
VIC Criminal Law
WA Criminal Law
My legal matter concerning an application for a Domestic Violence Order was managed by Mr Thomas Allen. I am grateful for the outcome he obtained. Without Mr Allen and his ongoing support, I would be certain of a different result. It has been an extremely stressful period. Mr Allen’s astute ability to liaise on my behalf and his expertise was invaluable and for which I am grateful as I am now able to move forward. Thanking you
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Armstrong Legal and specifically Mr Thomas Allen for representing me in my recent case. At the outset, I would like to thank Mr Allen for the very professional delivery of his legal service. From the first time that I met Mr Allen, I was very impressed with his demeanour and delivery as he made me feel at ease knowing the severity of my case. Mr Allen not only gave me the possible positive outcomes of the case but also the realisation of the worst-case scenario as far as sentencing goes. … I will certainly be recommending Armstrong Legal to any of my friends or family needing representation in criminal matters. Thank you so very much.
Thank you for your representation and help. Fingers crossed for the next step and parole. I just want to say that from the first phone call to your office, your service has been outstanding and have put my mind at ease. I am glad I picked your number to ring.
Thank you Armstrong Legal, the lawyers that have helped over the past 3 years but more importantly, thank you to Thomas Allen for the major part you and Mr Buckland played. Cannot thank you enough. Cheers.
Hi all. I would like to thank Ms Lisa Riley for all her help with my legal issues this past month. It was the most harrowing experience of my life and thanks to her expertise, professionalism and knowledge of the law, I came out almost unscathed. I have no hesitation in recommending Lisa Riley and Armstrong Legal if you need help. The service is amazing and the cost was very minimal for the great outcome. Thank you Lisa for helping me in the most difficult time.
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. My whole life I was thrown away, you made me feel like I did mean something. I could not have asked for a better lawyer. Your compassion and love for your job is inspiring. Your upfront and honesty were muchly appreciated, you are a beautiful person. Thank you for not giving up on me and thank you for all the work you put in. I wish you all the best for the future and I will be recommending you to everyone I know. You're amazing!!!!
I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.
I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
Extra-curial Punishment (Vic)
Extra-curial punishment is serious loss or detriment imposed on an offender other than that imposed by a court. Such punishment can take many forms, including physical or psychological injury, public condemnation, loss of employment prospects, and deportation. There is no specific requirement for a court in Victoria to consider extra-curial punishment when sentencing an offender, but a court is entitled to consider it as a mitigating factor.
The Sentencing Act 1991 allows sentences to be imposed for reasons of punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, community protection or a combination of these. Section 5 requires the court to consider any “mitigating factor concerning the offender or of any other relevant circumstances” when sentencing an offender. This provides an avenue for the court to incorporate extra-curial punishment in a sentence.
The weight to be given to extra-curial punishment depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Considerations include:
- the nature and size of the types of extra-curial punishment;
- the extent to which the extra-curial punishment relates to the conduct of the offence;
- the effect of the hardship caused by the extra-curial punishment, in real terms.
Any court that imposes extra-curial sentencing is expected to clearly articulate the reasons for doing so, given the relative indeterminate nature of such sentencing.
Injuries or harm stemming from offending
An offender may be left with left with some physical or psychological disability as a consequence of committing a crime. For instance, a drug producer may have been injured when their drug lab exploded, or an arsonist may have been burned as a result of a fire they lit.
However, there must be a sufficient connection between the offending and the injuries or harm suffered by the offender to establish this hardship as extra-curial punishment. Injuries sustained by the offender during the offence that result inadvertently or as a result of misadventure are not considered extra-curial punishment.
Extra-curial punishment may not apply where an offender is shot by police during the commission of a crime, or where an intruder is injured in an attack by a resident defending their home.
Public condemnation and opprobrium
This is a common hardship claimed as extra-curial punishment. It is argued on the basis that a high-profile offender attracts greater vilification, adverse publicity and public humiliation as a result of their crimes than other offenders.
This category of extra-curial punishment is controversial for several reasons:
- a fundamental purpose of sentencing is to denounce the offender’s conduct, so it is contradictory that this denunciation should, at the same time, be a basis for mitigation of a sentence;
- public scorn can emanate from a variety of sources, and depends on the type of offence and the notoriety of the offender, making the level of opprobrium impossible to measure or quantify;
- it can divide offenders indefensibly into classes of offenders based on privilege – those with enviable careers or social positions or wealth may have their sentences mitigated while those who are jobless or who have low living standards may be penalised to the full force of the law.
DPP v Pusey
In March 2020, Richard Pusey was pulled over by police for speeding on a Melbourne freeway. A truck then ploughed into four police officers at the scene, killing them. Rather than help the officers, Pusey filmed the carnage, including dying officers, with commentary. He convicted of several offences, including committing an act that outrages public decency contrary to the common law.
Media coverage of the event included headlines labelling Pusey as “vile” and “the devil”. He received death threats, his home was damaged, the garage door of his home was painted with the word “vermin”, and were eggs thrown at home. In prison, he was held in a protection unit, and at times was placed under observation due to suicidal ideation. The judge stated Pusey’s conduct had attracted an “enormous amount of public antipathy” and the consequences of this could be considered as a form of extra-curial punishment.
Loss of a career, professional reputation, potential earnings and employment prospects are common themes in this category. An offender can be dismissed from a job and prevented from pursuing a career in certain profession, such as law and accountancy, as a result of a conviction. Unlike other forms of extra-curial punishment, there is a direct connection between the offending and the reduced employment opportunities for the offender.
The relevance and/or weight to be given to the employment consequences for an offender can be influenced by whether the offence was connected to the offender’s employment or committed while they were working in that occupation.
It has been argued that wider social issues need to be considered by a court so as not to compound disadvantage of an already unemployed offender.
A term of imprisonment of one year or more can result in a failure to meet the “character test”, which must be passed to obtain and maintain a migration visa to Australia. If a visa-holder commits a crime and is sentenced to more than one year in prison, their visa is automatically cancelled and they become an unlawful non-citizen, subject to deportation. In some criminal cases in Victoria, deportation or the risk of it has been deemed an irrelevant consideration but in others is has been deemed to constitute a hardship to the offender.
DPP v Kamal
In April 2019, Siti Kamal attempted to blackmail a couple in Melbourne, after the couple pleaded on social media for the return of a lost phone that contained images of their terminally ill infant daughter. Kamal, who did not have the phone, demanded money for the safe return of it. She was convicted and jailed for 3 years.
The Malaysian national’s defence lawyer argued that Kamal’s deportation after serving her sentence would impose an additional emotional burden and should be considered extra-curial punishment. The judge disagreed, stating her case “does not involve a loss of opportunity or return to a situation of deprivation” and that deportation would not cause “emotional difficulty that would add to the service of a term of imprisonment”.
For advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
Under the Victorian Sentencing Act (1991) a person who is charged with criminal offences is classified as a young offender if…
In Victoria, diversion programs aim to keep child offenders out of the criminal justice system via early intervention. There are…
When determining any sentence, a court must consider a number of sentencing objectives and principles. These include just punishment, general…
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
22 St Georges Terrace Perth